ArticleScientific reports2024
Development and validation of a semi-automated and unsupervised method for femur segmentation from CT.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Segmentation methods for quantifying X-ray Computed Tomography based biomarkers to assess hip fracture risk: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Pooled it
- Development of a subject-specific finite element analysis workflow to assess local biomechanics during segmental bone defect healing.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2025Article
- Towards an Automated Computational Workflow to Assess Primary Stability in Total Hip Arthroplasty.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Two stage deep learning network for automated femoral segmentation in bilateral lower limb CT scans.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Phantomless calibration of CT scans for hip fracture risk prediction in silico: Comparison with phantom-based calibration.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-based in silico models have demonstrated improved accuracy in predicting hip fractures with respect to the current gold standard, the areal bone mineral density. These models require that the femur bone is segmented as a first step. This task can be challenging, and in fact, it is often almost fully manual, which is time-consuming, operator-dependent, and hard to reproduce. This work proposes a semi-automated procedure for femur bone segmentation from CT images. The proposed procedure is based on the bone and joint enhancement filter and graph-cut algorithms. The semi-automated procedure performances were assessed on 10 subjects through comparison with the standard manual segmentation. Metrics based on the femur geometries and the risk of fracture assessed in silico resulting from the two segmentation procedures were considered. The average Hausdorff distance (0.03 ± 0.01 mm) and the difference union ratio (0.06 ± 0.02) metrics computed between the manual and semi-automated segmentations were significantly higher than those computed within the manual segmentations (0.01 ± 0.01 mm and 0.03 ± 0.02). Besides, a blind qualitative evaluation revealed that the semi-automated procedure was significantly superior (p < 0.001) to the manual one in terms of fidelity to the CT. As for the hip fracture risk assessed in silico starting from both segmentations, no significant difference emerged between the two (R
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.